A Question of Legality [Photography] at DVinfo.net

Jaime M. Prater · April 21st, 2009, 08:25 AM

I am working on a documentary called BORN, about being born and raised in a religious commune [I was] in Chicago.

I have quite a few photos at my disposal that feature many many people. I'd like to use these photos to illustrate what commune life was like. Can I use these photos or do I have to get the permission of everyone in the photo?

[My apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else, I looked around for a similar thread to no avail]

Jaime

Dalen Johnson · April 21st, 2009, 09:01 AM

I did a quick google search and this came up from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...tography_N.htm

Doesnt cover video, but the gist seems to be there. If in a public place (which that isnt) and they are uniquely identifiable - then yes. (So in your case, it would seem you would have to get some release from the folks in the photo if in private settings.) Just a starter...keep searching and see what you come up with. :)

Scott Timothy Wilson · April 21st, 2009, 12:10 PM

I wonder if documentaries have special exceptions though. Think about Michael Moore walking into Walmart headquarters and talking crap about them selling ammunition...would walmart really have signed a release form for that? I've noticed other puzzling things like that when watching docs. I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't throw this pictures away just yet!

Dylan Tobias · April 21st, 2009, 09:37 PM

Depending on what your final product is going to be and what countries you are involved with, the more specialized legal advice you will need to be given by someone authorized and part of the secret society of lawyers and judges.

Issues pertaining to the enforcement of the laws of the secret society of lawyers and judges (SSOLAJ) always involves risk, and how much of it you are willing to take. When dealing with the hypocrisy and vagueness of the SSOLAJ one will always take great risks and one can never predict the outcome as modern lawyers and judges have corrupted the whole system.

Knowing what the precidents are only can help so much as they are overrulled all the time by various judges. Also if someone wants to sue you, they will sue you even if you are within the secret societys general guidelines for whatever law. You get to learn the precidents by having an official of the secret society (a lawyer) tell it to you, as they are the only ones authorized by the state to talk about the rules (laws) of the SSOLAJ to you.

No just anyone can give legal advice in certain countries without risking being charged themselves by agents of the SSOLAJ, that includes giving legal advice on internet forums if you are not an offical agent of the society. For this reason, you will not really get a proper response to this question on this forum as most people will not risk giving legal advice if they are not an agent of the SSOLAJ themselves. There are online agents of the society you can contact though if you cant afford most.

To avoid dealing with any of the possibilities relating to this there is a simple solution, just blur over recognizable faces. You will see this done on many shows. That really is the only failsafe solution, if there even is that kind of thing anymore when dealing with the SSOLAJ.

Alan Craig · April 21st, 2009, 11:53 PM

For the videographers in UK Phil Bloom did a nice thread called Filming rights in the UK. A nice informative article there is also a small piece that you can print out and carry round with you for the awkward moments when somebody says Hey you Can't film here. Thanks to Phil and this small piece of paper you might be able to put them in thier place politely of course.

Alan

Tripp Woelfel · April 22nd, 2009, 06:15 AM

You need to consult a lawyer or two to get any real cogent answers on this. As has been said, using your photos where faces are recognizable exposes you to the possibility of a lawsuit regardless of whether or not you are within your legal rights. It's up to you to determine how much exposure you are willing to assume. You can only make an informed decision on this once you've gotten some accurate legal advice.

David Barnett · April 22nd, 2009, 07:30 AM

You could blur their faces. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you will need to do this, since you don't have their consent.

Martin Catt · April 25th, 2009, 04:12 AM

Since you said they are photos (i.e. stills), scan them into Photoshop and either blur or blackbar the faces. It isn't like you have to manually go in and blur each frame of video.

Martin

Nick Gordon · May 30th, 2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Timothy Wilson

I wonder if documentaries have special exceptions though. Think about Michael Moore walking into Walmart headquarters and talking crap about them selling ammunition...would walmart really have signed a release form for that? I've noticed other puzzling things like that when watching docs. I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't throw this pictures away just yet!

2 points:

1. There's generally an exemption if what you're shooting is of significant public interest
2. Have you seen how many lawyers Michael Moore credits in his movies?. "Bowling for Columbine" specifically credits 4 of the crew as legal services. Quite likely there were others associated with the production.

Paul Tauger · May 30th, 2009, 01:07 PM

1. Commercial appropriation of likeness laws vary from state to state. There is no simple answer to this. However, whenever photos are taken in a locale where the subject has an expectation of privacy, a release is required.

2. In addition to the release issue, there is a significant issue of copyright. Did you take the photos? If not, you'll have to obtain a license to use them.

Kevin Lewis · June 1st, 2009, 10:31 AM

What if an interviewee is wearing a shirt that has a likeness of someone famous on it? In this particular sitution, they were wearing a shirt that had a moviestar on it. The shirt has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but none the less they were wearing it during the interview. Any thoughts?

Paul Tauger · June 1st, 2009, 10:43 AM

Yes. It is copyright infringement, without a license from the shirt manufacturer and/or the photographer (whoever withheld film rights). It also may be commercial appropriation of likeness, depending on the jurisdiction. I'd suggest doing a track matte and blurring out the likeness on the shirt.

Kevin Lewis · June 1st, 2009, 11:27 AM

Thanks Paul.

Jonathan Levin · June 2nd, 2009, 09:33 AM

I've been under the impression that if used as "editorial" you may not need a release. I think where it gets sticky is if you use those photos to promote or endorse a product of some sort.

I don't know if your intent is to sell this doc or what. Either way, I'd also try to find out and get permission from the original photographer for permission to use the photo(s) to avoid infringement.

As mentioned above, talking with a seasoned law professional would be your best bet, and then please report back here with your findings.

Jonathan

Nick Gordon · June 3rd, 2009, 03:11 AM

Just to back up what others have said. You must talk to a lawyer. This is not an area that's subject to rational deduction.

Take the example of the t-shirt with celeb picture. Rationally, you'd be fine. After all, it's a pic of a guy/gal who agreed to have their pic on t-shirts, the t-shirts are sold to be worn in public, lots of people take pics/videos of t-shirts. Think holiday pics/movies, and all those pics and brand logos on people's gear.

But then start thinking like a lawyer. I could sell the image rights of the celeb for movie use, so if I let some nobody from nowhere use his/her image, even as a by-the-way, in a movie, I'm either devaluing the rights, or I'm not sticking to the contract I have with whomever I sold the rights to. So I have to act to protect the interest.

Of course, the reductio ad absurdum of this is that no-one may take photos or shoot movies in the public places without a licence, in case they capture a controlled image. But since much the intellectual property law community doesn't seem to have me the word 'absurd', it's not an impossible notion.

So talk to a lawyer, be safe. Or don't, and be a rebel :-)

April 21st, 2009, 08:25 AM	#1
Jaime M. Prater Tourist Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago, Illinois Posts: 4	A Question of Legality [Photography] I am working on a documentary called BORN, about being born and raised in a religious commune [I was] in Chicago. I have quite a few photos at my disposal that feature many many people. I'd like to use these photos to illustrate what commune life was like. Can I use these photos or do I have to get the permission of everyone in the photo? [My apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else, I looked around for a similar thread to no avail] Jaime

April 21st, 2009, 12:10 PM	#3
Scott Timothy Wilson New Boot Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Wilmington, DE Posts: 19	I wonder if documentaries have special exceptions though. Think about Michael Moore walking into Walmart headquarters and talking crap about them selling ammunition...would walmart really have signed a release form for that? I've noticed other puzzling things like that when watching docs. I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't throw this pictures away just yet! __________________ All that I know is that I know nothing at all.

April 25th, 2009, 04:12 AM	#8
Martin Catt Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The Colony TX Posts: 327	Since you said they are photos (i.e. stills), scan them into Photoshop and either blur or blackbar the faces. It isn't like you have to manually go in and blur each frame of video. Martin __________________ Canon XF300, Canon 5DMkII, Canon XL2, Rolls MX422 mixer, Zoom H4N, AT899 lavs, AT2020's, Azden SGM 1X shotgun, Manfrotto 501 head on 351 tripod

April 21st, 2009, 09:01 AM	#2
Dalen Johnson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Karcag, Hungary Posts: 77	I did a quick google search and this came up from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...tography_N.htm Doesnt cover video, but the gist seems to be there. If in a public place (which that isnt) and they are uniquely identifiable - then yes. (So in your case, it would seem you would have to get some release from the folks in the photo if in private settings.) Just a starter...keep searching and see what you come up with. :)

April 21st, 2009, 09:37 PM	#4
Dylan Tobias Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Toronto Canada Posts: 71	Depending on what your final product is going to be and what countries you are involved with, the more specialized legal advice you will need to be given by someone authorized and part of the secret society of lawyers and judges. Issues pertaining to the enforcement of the laws of the secret society of lawyers and judges (SSOLAJ) always involves risk, and how much of it you are willing to take. When dealing with the hypocrisy and vagueness of the SSOLAJ one will always take great risks and one can never predict the outcome as modern lawyers and judges have corrupted the whole system. Knowing what the precidents are only can help so much as they are overrulled all the time by various judges. Also if someone wants to sue you, they will sue you even if you are within the secret societys general guidelines for whatever law. You get to learn the precidents by having an official of the secret society (a lawyer) tell it to you, as they are the only ones authorized by the state to talk about the rules (laws) of the SSOLAJ to you. No just anyone can give legal advice in certain countries without risking being charged themselves by agents of the SSOLAJ, that includes giving legal advice on internet forums if you are not an offical agent of the society. For this reason, you will not really get a proper response to this question on this forum as most people will not risk giving legal advice if they are not an agent of the SSOLAJ themselves. There are online agents of the society you can contact though if you cant afford most. To avoid dealing with any of the possibilities relating to this there is a simple solution, just blur over recognizable faces. You will see this done on many shows. That really is the only failsafe solution, if there even is that kind of thing anymore when dealing with the SSOLAJ.

April 21st, 2009, 11:53 PM	#5
Alan Craig Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Warrington England Posts: 143	For the videographers in UK Phil Bloom did a nice thread called Filming rights in the UK. A nice informative article there is also a small piece that you can print out and carry round with you for the awkward moments when somebody says Hey you Can't film here. Thanks to Phil and this small piece of paper you might be able to put them in thier place politely of course. Alan

April 22nd, 2009, 06:15 AM	#6
Tripp Woelfel Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: North Conway, NH Posts: 1,745	You need to consult a lawyer or two to get any real cogent answers on this. As has been said, using your photos where faces are recognizable exposes you to the possibility of a lawsuit regardless of whether or not you are within your legal rights. It's up to you to determine how much exposure you are willing to assume. You can only make an informed decision on this once you've gotten some accurate legal advice.

April 22nd, 2009, 07:30 AM	#7
David Barnett Major Player Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 951	You could blur their faces. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you will need to do this, since you don't have their consent.

May 30th, 2009, 01:07 PM	#10
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	1. Commercial appropriation of likeness laws vary from state to state. There is no simple answer to this. However, whenever photos are taken in a locale where the subject has an expectation of privacy, a release is required. 2. In addition to the release issue, there is a significant issue of copyright. Did you take the photos? If not, you'll have to obtain a license to use them.

June 1st, 2009, 10:31 AM	#11
Kevin Lewis Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Philadelphia, pa Posts: 705	What if an interviewee is wearing a shirt that has a likeness of someone famous on it? In this particular sitution, they were wearing a shirt that had a moviestar on it. The shirt has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but none the less they were wearing it during the interview. Any thoughts?

June 1st, 2009, 10:43 AM	#12
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	Yes. It is copyright infringement, without a license from the shirt manufacturer and/or the photographer (whoever withheld film rights). It also may be commercial appropriation of likeness, depending on the jurisdiction. I'd suggest doing a track matte and blurring out the likeness on the shirt.

June 1st, 2009, 11:27 AM	#13
Kevin Lewis Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Philadelphia, pa Posts: 705	Thanks Paul.

June 2nd, 2009, 09:33 AM	#14
Jonathan Levin Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Chicago, Illinois USA Posts: 692	I've been under the impression that if used as "editorial" you may not need a release. I think where it gets sticky is if you use those photos to promote or endorse a product of some sort. I don't know if your intent is to sell this doc or what. Either way, I'd also try to find out and get permission from the original photographer for permission to use the photo(s) to avoid infringement. As mentioned above, talking with a seasoned law professional would be your best bet, and then please report back here with your findings. Jonathan

June 3rd, 2009, 03:11 AM	#15
Nick Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 166	Just to back up what others have said. You must talk to a lawyer. This is not an area that's subject to rational deduction. Take the example of the t-shirt with celeb picture. Rationally, you'd be fine. After all, it's a pic of a guy/gal who agreed to have their pic on t-shirts, the t-shirts are sold to be worn in public, lots of people take pics/videos of t-shirts. Think holiday pics/movies, and all those pics and brand logos on people's gear. But then start thinking like a lawyer. I could sell the image rights of the celeb for movie use, so if I let some nobody from nowhere use his/her image, even as a by-the-way, in a movie, I'm either devaluing the rights, or I'm not sticking to the contract I have with whomever I sold the rights to. So I have to act to protect the interest. Of course, the reductio ad absurdum of this is that no-one may take photos or shoot movies in the public places without a licence, in case they capture a controlled image. But since much the intellectual property law community doesn't seem to have me the word 'absurd', it's not an impossible notion. So talk to a lawyer, be safe. Or don't, and be a rebel :-)